This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Rotherham, H1B's and the news cycle on X
On X (formerly Twitter), Elon likes to say "You are the media now". I think, he's... kinda right.
One thing that always amazed me about the mainstream media was their ability to control the news cycle. You'd wake up one Monday, and all of a sudden the entire media would be talking about one story like it's the most important thing in the world. Everyone is using the exact same language, repeating the same facts, etc... You'd be forgiven for thinking that a government propaganda bureau is directing it all from a central office. But the media wasn't actively conspiring, it was just group think and herd-following.
What's more, it mattered. Stories that got major media exposure led to real action from political and corporate leaders. The summer of George Floyd may have been the platonic ideal of this.
Well, X seems to have its own news cycle now.
Last week, X was aflame with a intra-right culture war between those who support and those who oppose high-skill immigration, especially from India. Feelings were hurt, accounts were banned, and it didn't die down until Trump made a statement.
This week, the big story is the Rotherham grooming gangs. I'm not exactly sure why it's being revisited now, but every other story in my feed is about the horrific crimes and the massive coverup which extends in England to this day. Perhaps people smell blood in the water. Kier Starmer, the incredibly unpopular PM of the UK, was head of CPS during the critical years. It seems he chose not to aggressively prosecute many of the monsters who gang-raped 13 year olds.
In my opinion, X provides a better platform for ideas to percolate into the public's consciousness. In the past, unless a story was "too big to ignore" like the Trump assassination, corporate newsrooms could and did bury stories that reflected their political team in a negative light. This can't happen on X. Moreover, a lot of the coverage of news events is less retarded on X (depending on who you follow of course). I'm sure there were lots of bad takes during the H1B kurfluffle, but I didn't see many. I saw a lot of nuanced but fearless conversation that went a lot deeper than anything you'd be likely to see on ABC or in Time Magazine.
I think that there is some special sauce in the technology.
Traditional journalism is top down. We (the authority figures) tell you what to think. On the other extreme, discussion sites like Reddit allow anonymous accounts to speak with the same authority as established ones. As a result, they are gamed by bots, and flooded with low value opinions. X seems to be a hybrid. Authority figures can post to their audience, but they cannot do so without getting pushback from others. When using it, I somehow feel connected to the people and ideas that matter.
I'll probably have to delete the app again in a few weeks.
Something that really stood out to me about the Rotherham et al. issue is how low some of the prison sentences were (in many cases the low single digits). Like, I'm all for rehabilitation if it's likely to work, but it's trivially obviously not going to for these people!
Rape sentences (indeed sentences for almost all violent crime) are very low in Europe. They were in the US, too, until the 1990s. In the UK Blair and Major implemented some strike rules and high mandatory minimums exist for some types of knife and gun crime, but sexual violence wasn’t typically part of that unless it culminated in homicide.
Wait, are feminists right about rape culture?
Yes, but they're a part of it. I've seen Julie Bindel call people who try to raise an alarm re: Rotherham "fascists".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This isn't just regular rape. It's child rape, kidnapping, torture, etc...
I could post some of the excerpts from the court documents, but I wouldn't want you to lose your lunch.
This isn't about sentencing guidelines, it's about corruption and ideology. If the victims were Pakistani and the perpetrators white, these cases would have been treated like the crime of the century and resulted in severe punishments.
I’ve been following the cases for over ten years, it’s likely I’ve read them.
More options
Context Copy link
I'd be surprised in that case if the perpetrators survived to go on trial.
Nor would have the victims.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am morbidly curious. Can you link some?
Here is a transcript from one of the court cases.
I regret reading even some of that. Don't think I'll be getting any sleep tonight. And the UK government actively covered up this massive gangrape ring for thirty years. Absolutely unthinkable that such a thing can happen in the 21st century, in a first-world country.
More options
Context Copy link
You can find them on X. I won't ruin people's day by posting them here.
So "I could post some" was a misleading offer. I am going to assume that your other claims were also misleading.
Did you just spin up a new account to be an ass? Knock it off.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The rotherham news is fairly gruesome, i was aware of this abck in 2019 and am happy that more are talking about this. I cannot imagine even India as a country letting people get away with rape of underage girls the way UK did. Maybe I am wrong and all of what I read was propoganda but it seems fairly consistent with what you see back in the subcontinent, the UK should deport people en masse at least those who did touch girls but I am not sure if they will do anything at all.
You have the usual suspects hand waving and downplaying the entire incident because they are either leftists or from the subcontinent which is not surprising. There is no punishment severe enough for people who do this. here is Sulaiman Ahmad, a friend of Nick fuentes who is trying his best logical fallacies to blame da joos for mass rapes, tom holland living being the personification of soy morality. I wish I were surprised but I have been too online now.
You even had cases of people shotgun marrying girls to their groomers. Twitter allowing Jared Taylor back again this time and having Elon publicly tweeting about this all day is a very good sign. Still unsure if this will lead to anything substantial.
India is complicated. If it happens in a developed area to middle class folks, you can generally expect the response that @KulakRevolt calls for when white people are the victims (unless politicians kids are the rapist, in which case it gets covered up).
High profile example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_and_murder
All but the juvenile were either hanged or epsteined.
In many cases things will be handled extrajudicially. In a case I know about, the perpetrator of a crime that fell far short of rape was beaten nearly to death and put on a train back to his home village, told he'd be killed if he returned.
If it happens in some village, that's a whole different world and all kinds of things might happen: blame the victim, public lynching of perpetrators, forced marriage, wait for a sign from God...
Treating India as a single country is kind of a fallacy.
It is not one homogenous people, there are overarching similarities. Unfortunately, with more of the good people moving out, this wont stay the same forever. In India you get a lot of inconsistency in justice for these things. You even had politicians make statements that boys will be boys and the girl was asking for it, dismal.
Note that you are citing a politician who is widely criticized for opposing the death penalty for rape due to concerns over false accusations. "Boys will be boys" is not a reasonable English translation of his comment, but Indian media is just as biased as western.
The median rapist in the US serves 4.2 years and US leftists think this is too long.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/03/how-much-time-do-criminals-really-serve.html
India has many issues, but it isn't Pakistan by a long shot - although UP (where Mulayam is from) is of course one of the more Pakistan-like places.
As it relates to recent discussions more relevant here: the Indians going to Britain and America are Tamil and Bengali Brahmins.
The table shows that "Rape/sexual assault" has a median of 4.2 years before first release, which is the second-longest (shorter than murder by a lot, longer than negligent homicide by a little). However, not all of that is rape. Some sexual assault is just rape by another name, but "sexual assault" also includes lesser offenses such as groping.
More options
Context Copy link
No, Indians in the US are mostly Telugus who scam the most, gujratis and punjabis in canada, punjabis in the uk again but they are pakistanis but they are not brahmins or even upper caste mostly. This is simply not true as the three states I mentioned are mostly middle caste states.
India is inherently an unsafe place for women, period, people here are very creepy, I do not self identify with them and that is for a good reason. Most rapes here go unreported.
Yes, it despite all its issues is way safer than its neighbors, you can see girls in thongs in goa, cannot imagine that anywhere else in the subcontinent. Still, it is inherently a bad place for women, most of the biocapital here is bottom of the barrel. Some parts of SEA are safer than europe now for women simply because they do not have an influx of people overrepresented in crime statistics.
yes, but Muslim ghettos here are basically secluded zones so they are not far off, this goes for any and all places. Tamil Nadu and Bengal have a worse future than UP. UP has a sizeable upper caste population, more Tamil Brahmins exist outside of Tamil Nadu, Bengal will have more muslims than Hindus by the turn of the century and the upper castes (kayasthas and brahmins) have already started packing thier bags.
He was a terrible person by all accounts, got kar sevaks punished for the Ram Mandir, comes form a middle caste that wrecked havoc in Bihar, did the same in UP after their failed Sanskritization comments and made even worse remarks on camera.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What I am wondering here is why you are talking about India if it were actually Pakistanis, at least according to the few articles I've read. Of course this is also the subcontinent, but why aren't the Indians against their enemies? I assumed India and Pakistan really don't like each other? Do they want to be blamed unjustly? Or is the culture regarding this behavior similar enough that they don't really mind being put together?
By subcontinent I meant to include the whole of the region from Afghanistan till Bangladesh. Indians despise Pakistan and to an extent Sikhs. Every single Hindu nationalists keeping track of these events and indians in the UK don't align as much with Pakistan.
Indians don't commit sexual assault or other crimes at the same rate as Afghanistan or Pakistan if you go by media perception.
The behaviors across the subcontinent don't vary very much sadly. I dislike Pakistan and Afghanistan, they embody all of Indias pitfalls but somehow make it worse.
One of the mods here is an Indian in the UK lol
More options
Context Copy link
The people who did this should have the shit beaten out of them followed by a public hanging (short drop method, it needs to be painful pour encourager les autres). It's the only way to keep those like them under control and the sooner westerners recognize this the better.
Well said.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, one cannot argue with that!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think what you're pointing at is a great example of the McLuhan "Medium is the Message." In the days of radio and television the medium determined that the message was necessarily centralized and top-down -- information dribbled out to the public. The Internet's 'medium' is decentralized which disrupts and negates the top-down gatekeeeping so it's 'message' is effectively, "here's what everyone else is saying." The thing is, I think we've already moved through that into the next medium, the Balkanized-firing-rings of social media. We get the decentralization and access to information, but included in that are the muddy waters of propaganda and disinfo, devolution to the lowest-common-denominator-cringe-take, and whales pressing their fishy flippers on the scales of truth. The message now is, "don't believe your lying eyes."
The propaganda and disinfo was always included in the information stream. See Walter Duranty's Pulitzer-winning reportage from Stalin's USSR.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Probably worth adding context that this isn't just twitter rabblerousing. It made the jump to much of the rest of the media in about 24 hours, and merited responses from prominent politicians including a former PM.
Referring to Liz Truss as a former PM feels so wrong to me. Like, it's technically true, but it doesn't sound right. Like referring to Pete Best as a member of the critically acclaimed recording act The Beatles.
That said, Pete releasing an album titled "Best of the Beatles" was absolute genius.
More options
Context Copy link
It’s going to make for a banger trivia question in a couple of decades, though: who was prime minister when Queen Elizabeth II died?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wouldn’t describe her as a prominent politician, and in any case Truss had no opinions on this at all until she decided her only career option post disastrous premiership was to become a fixture of the US conservative grifter circuit. She is correct here, but out of greed rather than conviction. In office, even Sunak and Patel were more willing to discuss the issue than she was.
Her own politics were generic vague pro-immigration (or at least immigration-ambivalent) feel good “Britannia Unchained” libertarianism until she got fired after fewer than two months.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
X is increasingly an echo chamber of a small fraction of the Western public. Even then, didn’t Elon literally strip blue checks from a bunch of accounts that criticized him on the H1B issue (Loomer etc)? This guy controls the algorithm, if he wants to make something less popular he can do it immediately. He’s not any different from Murdoch, Zucker or Rothermere in that sense.
Wasn't it always an echo chamber of a small fraction of the public?
More options
Context Copy link
Buying Twitter might turn out to be the most impactful thing he's ever done.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is this the public or is it just the Online Right? Not that many Americans are on X and of those maybe half are right leaning? So the impact, while it’s there, Isn’t that huge I think
I think it has a pretty huge impact. These are the numbers:
1/8 Americans is a lot of Americans. No, not as much as FB, but I do agree with OP in that stuff on X seems to percolate a lot better than on FB / Snapchat / IG etc. I can't think of any one organization or app or newspaper that is (recently, last 10 years) more impactful on US political discourse. Maybe the NYT, but even they only have 11 million subs or 3% of the US population.
The algorithm determines what you see however and is good at hiding politics you don’t agree with (although musk tweets may be an exception)
You are misreading the OP. OP is not claiming that X is percolating ideas of a representative sample of the public into the public consciousness, OP is claiming that X is percolating ideas into the public consciousness, period.
I don’t deny that I just wonder at the scale of its reach. It’s good that right wingers are starting to get into “raising awareness” game, which has so far been dominated by liberal causes and ideas
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
imo: “active Facebook” is a retirement community, so the numbers aren’t as significant. Sure, they have voting power, but they aren’t changing culture. Among the age group of people capable of changing culture, you have X and Reddit, with Reddit having an organic negative reputation. Tik Tok is an weighty challenger against Twitter, but it’s not used the same way.
Age is a factor. But I think it is more the structure of the sites. Reddit and FB are too siloed and too moderated, things can't get enough reach to really take off into the public consciousness.
I know very little of Tik Tok so I can't comment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's also kind of insane that the Rotherham crimes were able to occur because there is a lot of red-tape you have to deal with if you have contact with children in the UK. Apparently, some of the men involved had criminal convictions which should have automatically barred them from having regular contact with children who are not their own. So not only were the police ignoring accusations of sexual assault but they were also ignoring crimes where the prosecution should be very straight forward. Also, people in positions of authority who deal with children are meant to be trained to notice signs of abuse and I believe there also mandatory reporting requirements. So the people who covered this up or ignored it not only fucked up their jobs but it is likely they committed some kind of criminal act as well.
I always had a sneaking suspicion that if the ideas of oppression mean affirmative action then why would you not see the outcomes of lower standards in terms of policing and crimes, lo and behold, you had academics writing about how the part that affected the parents most was the act of the girls being involved with men from the subcontinent, pakistani muslims in particular
More options
Context Copy link
While many of the victims were in social care, the men weren’t involved in it, so they would never have undergone a background check. Some places have more recently instituted background checks for taxi drivers (which many perpetrators were), but this mostly didn’t happen or was little enforced during the period of most of the crime from the early 1990s through to the late 2000s / early 2010s.
The view of the police was that these were teenaged prostitutes from broken homes who were underclass ‘chavs’. That’s not to say there was no political correctness involved (there certainly was from the more middle class social workers, left wing press, council officials, and national government/Home Office) or no more banal corruption (eg local officials with close business and personal ties to some perpetrators), but it’s not the whole story without the class angle.
That's true of many 'racial' issues.
"The black pawns and the white pawns have more in common with each other than with their kings; if they organised together, the whole board could be a republic in a dozen moves." (GNU Terry Pratchett)
In the UK the white pawns are monarchist, and so are the knights. It’s the castles and bishops who are in favour of a republic.
You can play down the class angle too much, but you can also play it up too much. Terry Pratchett understood this perfectly well, which is why all the viewpoint characters except Vimes have a much more nuanced view of royalty and social organisation generally.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Except what happened isn't news. A fringe MAGA personality made comments critical of a figure influential within the Trump administration, particularly his stance on H-1B visas. The figure responded, and Trump took the side of the figure. A discussion about skilled immigration occurred as a side effect. But the whole thing was apropos of nothing. There's no bill pending before congress that proposes to restrict or expand the program; neither Trump nor anyone in Congress is even proposing such a bill. The story had a shelf life of about a week, and it isn't likely that this is going to bubble up into a huge policy issue once Trump takes office.
I think the discussion mattered. Any raising of the H1B cap is now dead in the water and I think it's likely that the system will be reformed to fix its many abuses.
Another idea that's now dead in the water: stapling a green card to college diplomas.
The cap has been fixed for decades and wasn’t raised even during the high point of bipartisan pro-immigration feeling, so it was about as likely to be raised as Turkey is to join the EU in the next five years.
Why? Again, only a small minority of GOP congressmen need to be persuaded by Musk / Trump for this to pass, since the Dems will all vote for it and Trump will sign it.
Stapling a green card to college diplomas was always dead in the water because it's a fantastically stupid idea. Trump periodically voices his support for this idea (he did so in his first campaign as well) because he doesn't know any better, and various other GOP and tech figures support it as well, either because they don't know any better too or in many cases are eager to take advantage of the fact that Trump doesn't know any better. But it'll be dead in the water in Trump's second term for the same reason it was in his first term - by what can only be called divine intervention, amidst all the masturbatory paeans to migrant moxy, Donald Trump placed Stephen Miller in charge of his immigration policies, and Miller is not an idiot. Between Miller and whoever he recommends to be director of USCIS, the legal landscape for employment-based immigrants is likely to be harsher, not softer, just as it was in Trump's first term.
More options
Context Copy link
Doesn't the GOP still hold to the Hastert rule? They also have a pretty narrow majority. Is the Speaker going to be particularly brave in that sort of situation?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not to diminish the need to jail all the monsters, but my take here is that closure here requires investigating and disciplining all the parts of the government that refused to confront the issue for so long.
I'm not optimistic that it will happen, but generally a failure across that many departments merits an inquest designed to realign them to their duties.
The most shocking part of the revelations on Twitter, to me, has been that many of the victims had dads- who accepted being arrested by the police for attempting to prevent their daughters from getting raped. Most people I know would agree that the correct response to that situation is kulakrevolt-approved, I guess I could understand that not every dad actually did it, but none of them?
Most victims didn’t have fathers who were involved in their lives. You don’t have to believe every word of the official reports, but there’s no reason to disbelieve the clear through-line that a huge proportion were in social care, in and out of foster homes and (essentially) orphanages etc. There were a couple of high profile cases of fathers going after some of the men that are constantly reposted, but there is no major trend of it.
More options
Context Copy link
These girls weren’t just random British girls. They were of the underclass, if you’ve read Life At the Bottom (which you should) you’d know what these people are like. The dads are rarely even involved at all. That’s what made these girls vulnerable and partially why there is muted uproar in England.
Sure, that was my initial assumption- girls who don’t know who their dads are get sexually abused the world over, it’s a cultural universal. But dads who are involved enough to attempt to stop it, but not willing to suffer the consequences, is the surprising part.
As in the US, the system is more worried about the types of abuse noncustodial fathers might commit than the types of abuse an involved noncustodial father might prevent.
The fathers who were arrested were arrested for violating court orders enforcing the mother's custody - up to and including violating restraining orders taken out by mothers claiming domestic violence (being the sort of man who rescues his daughter from a dangerous rape gang is somewhat correlated with being the sort of man who would attract credible DV allegations).
This makes sense but it also seems like this is correlated with being the sort of man who does not care about the illegality of doing so anyways.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"A disarmed population is a peaceful population" -- somebody, probably.
I mean, UK citizens seem able to get firearms if they try hard enough(and are willing to do hard time, but, like, the law would see it as murder anyway). This is men failing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Governments nowadays have overwhelming force, and have had it for a while. Law-abiding people know that, and don't resist, because that can only make it worse.
Your kid is getting raped, regularly. How much worse can it get?
You get imprisoned and raped too, and your kid continues to be.
I mean that was happening anyway, and at least you can draw attention to what’s happening
You wouldn't. The most that would happen is you'd get your face attached to a headline about some far-right prole carrying out a racially-motivated attack on a poor innocent PoD (person of diversity)
This seems way too pessimistic. Daniel Penny stood up for strangers and in NYC of all places managed to get a not guilty verdict. Granted the UK is different but what jury would convict a parent of such a thing?
We are already aware a few parents tried to intervene but were arrested. So you already must admit you are wrong on this, just looking for excuses why these parents did nothing
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How common do you think the rape of middle-aged adult men is in UK prisons?
As common as middle-aged adult men who aren't hardened criminals themselves are in UK prisons.
On what possible basis? Even in the US that isn’t the way it works, let alone countries in which prison rape is much rarer.
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is not correct -- based on what I've heard (from people who ought to know) the whole semi-acceptable prison rape thing is mostly specific to the US. Not that you might not get the odd gay-psycho-rapist in the commonwealth systems, but that if nothing else the other prisoners tend to keep such guys more or less in check.
The UK underclass is pretty violent though -- I could believe 'severe beatings' as a fact of life for non-players-of-the game who found themselves incarcerated there. Sounds like most of the dads involved would be the type who were pretty involved in that culture in the first place though.
Again, the difference is Sam Colt -- there's not much a guy with a cricket bat/kitchen knife can actually do to seek revenge against a large gang of violent criminals, and there probably wasn't any single obvious target to go after within the diffuse blob of authorities refusing to take action.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, you would die trying. But is that not better than living knowing you didn’t even try?
Arguably, there have been several instances where acts that were themselves considered terrorism have at least swayed the public consciousness about other events. I find the Oklahoma City bombing pretty abhorrent, but it demonstrably caused reconsideration of the narrative behind the Waco siege. Or the Tunisian street vendor whose self-immolation kicked off the entire Arab Spring. Or why we're all talking so much about health insurance denials suddenly.
Of course, plenty of actions meant this way are not successful, but IMO something dramatic and well-documented in this instance might have caused public outcry.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Generating takes on emotionally explosive material already released to the public seems like it's one of the easiest media roles to replace. If anything, it should be clearly worse at it compared to your curated feed.
What happens when it comes time to find that material?
Journalism is also theoretically bottom up, where some local with a beat can go find things we can't/don't care to and feed it into the pneumatic tube that leads to the national Takes Machine. I don't think a lot of online debaters, especially the Ian Miles Cheong sort, are going to be doing that well.
At this point, I'm ambivalent. There are independent journalists that are doing good work with Patreon-style funding. The incentive structures and institutions at play are concerning and I don't have much confidence in how this will shake out in the medium term, but it's not obvious to me that the answer will be generalized enshittification of journalism. If I were inclined to be optimistic, it would be by considering how the variety of content platforms in television have led to some niche products that are really good. If I were inclined to be pessimistic, it would be by noting that the variety of content platforms mostly turn out a bunch of absolute garbage and what you wind up consuming is not necessarily driven by quality. We'll see.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I believe that it's because the documents from trials were released to the public now
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link